REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure and repealing Regulation (EU) No 347/2013

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Brussels, 1.12.2020
SEC(2020) 431 final
REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure and
repealing Regulation (EU) No 347/2013
{COM(2020) 824 final}
{SWD(2020) 346 final}
{SWD(2020) 347 final}
Europaudvalget 2020
KOM (2020) 0824
Offentligt
________________________________
This opinion concerns a draft impact assessment which may differ from the final version.
Commission européenne, B-1049 Bruxelles - Belgium. Office: BERL 08/010. E-mail: regulatory-scrutiny-board@ec.europa.eu
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Regulatory Scrutiny Board
Brussels,
RSB
Opinion
Title: Impact assessment / revision of TEN-E guidelines
Overall 2nd
opinion: POSITIVE WITH RESERVATIONS
(A) Policy context
The TEN-E Regulation provides a planning framework for investment in trans-European
energy networks. Projects of Common Interest (PCIs) contribute to the internal energy
market, security of supply and sustainability. The projects are in pre-defined cross-border
infrastructure corridors. They should be completed on time and be interoperable. The EU’s
ambitions for climate and energy policy require changes to the framework. This impact
assessment analyses possible changes. It draws on an evaluation of the 2013 Regulation.
(B) Summary of findings
The Board notes the improvements to the report, notably as regards the context
description and the logic of the intervention.
However, the report still contains significant shortcomings. The Board gives a
positive opinion with reservations because it expects the DG to rectify the following
aspects:
(1) The report lacks a clear justification for the need to establish separate
sustainability criteria for assessing candidate PCI projects that differ from the
recent taxonomy Regulation.
(2) The rationale for keeping the explicit list of TEN-E infrastructure categories is
not clear.
(3) It is not sufficiently clear to what extent the initiative can shorten delays in the
permitting process if the drivers of the problem are largely under national
control.
Ref. Ares(2020)7246979 - 01/12/2020
2
(C) What to improve
(1) The report should provide a better justification for creating a separate system for
assessing the sustainability of candidate projects of common interest. It is not clear why the
TEN-E sustainability assessment requires specific selection criteria or how they would
differ from those of the taxonomy Regulation. While the report acknowledges that the
details of the sustainability methodology would be developed later with the ENTSOs and
ACER, the report should at least provide the minimum requirements to align the PCI
selection with EU policy objectives.
(2) The report should be more specific on how it will ensure that the mandatory
sustainability criterion will take precedence over other criteria in the project selection
process, to ensure alignment with the Green Deal. It should also clarify why it proposes not
to apply the sustainability criterion to electricity projects. Although these automatically
fulfil the taxonomy requirements for climate mitigation, they should also do no significant
harm to other environmental and social objectives.
(3) The report should better substantiate why the revised Regulation should keep the list
of infrastructure categories. It should consider how it can make the initiative more future-
proof. It should also explain why it does not directly use the taxonomy Regulation to
ensure the alignment of the list with the Green Deal.
(4) The evaluation concludes that the delays in acquiring the permits for PCIs are largely
influenced by national laws and practices. The report should be clearer about the role of the
EU versus national levels in addressing these delays. In this context, it should better
explain the inclusion and the likely effectiveness of the policy option on ‘use of urgent
court procedures’, as it would only apply to Member States that have such procedures in
place (less than half).
The Board notes the estimated costs and benefits of the package of the preferred options in
this initiative, as summarised in the attached quantification tables.
(D) Conclusion
The DG may proceed with the initiative.
The DG must revise the report in accordance with the Board’s findings before
launching the interservice consultation.
If there are any changes in the choice or design of the preferred option in the final
version of the report, the DG may need to further adjust the attached quantification
tables to reflect this.
Full title Revision of the Trans-European Energy Networks (TEN-E)
Regulation
Reference number PLAN/2020/6566
Submitted to RSB on 9 November 2020
Date of RSB meeting Written procedure
3
4
ANNEX: Quantification tables extracted from the draft impact assessment report
The following tables contain information on the costs and benefits of the initiative on
which the Board has given its opinion, as presented above.
If the draft report has been revised in line with the Board’s recommendations, the content
of these tables may be different from those in the final version of the impact assessment
report, as published by the Commission.
I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Package of preferred options
Description Amount Main recipient (stakeholder group)
A) SCOPE
 Broadened scope to reflect technological developments for smart electricity grids (elements of Option A.1.1;
expanding the category on electricity storage would not be proposed)
Direct benefits
Reduced transaction costs Not possible to monetise benefit. Benefits for project promoters.
Facilitate the integration of
renewable energy sources at
distribution level
Not possible to monetise benefit. Benefits for owners of renewable energy
generation units at distribution level.
Indirect benefits
Provision of demand-side
flexibility by consumer
connected to the distribution
grid
Not possible to monetise benefit.
Higher penetration of smart grids will allow for
120 GW-150 GW of flexible load available by
2045
Benefits identified for citizens and society as
a whole, transmission system operators
Support in the uptake of
electric cars
Not possible to monetise benefit. Benefits identified for citizens and society as
a whole
Comprehensive control and
monitoring of the grid would
reduce the need for
curtailment of renewables
and enable competitive and
innovative energy services
for consumers.
Not possible to monetise benefit.
According to the IEA, investments in enhanced
digitalisation would reduce curtailment in Europe
by 67 TWh by 20401
.
Benefits identified for citizens and society as
a whole
 Limit scope to new and repurposed hydrogen network / Power-to-Gas installations (Option A.2.1) as well as smart
gas grids and retrofits of existing natural gas transmission assets for hydrogen admixtures/blends with safeguards in
place to ensure renewable and low-carbon gases are transported (elements of Option A.2.2; new transmission
pipelines for decarbonised gases and inclusion of advanced natural gas PCIs would not be proposed)
Direct benefits
Description Amounts Comments
GHG emission reduction
from the substitution of
fossil fuels by renewable or
low-carbon hydrogen
Not possible to monetise benefit.
In general, GHG emission reduction potential in
the range of 20-65 MtCO2/a, corresponding to
1.4%-4.5% of the reduction gap at EU-28 level
Benefits identified for citizens and society as
a whole
GHG emission reduction
from the substitution of
natural gas with biogas
Not possible to monetise benefit.
In general, GHG impact ranges from a 156
tCO2eq per TJ reduction to a 17 tCO2eq per TJ
increase in emissions
The exact impact will depend on the amount
of renewable and low carbon gases injected
into the grid and on the difference between
the GHG intensity of the specific renewable
and low carbon gas and the substituted fuel.
Benefits identified for citizens and society as
1 with demand-response accounting for 22 TWh and storage accounting for 45 TWh - IEA 2016
5
a whole
Increasingly interconnected
hydrogen networks will
create an internal market for
hydrogen and offer benefits
in terms of competition and
security of supply
Not possible to monetise benefit.
Up to 70% of additional demand for green
hydrogen projected by German TSOs for 2025
and 2030 is expected to be covered by imports of
decarbonised hydrogen from the Netherlands
Benefits for administrations (NCAs), energy
producers/ industry
Indirect benefits
Leveraging investments in
hydrogen technologies
In general, depending on the scenario, 7.5 billion
or 29 billion EUR of value added can be
generated annually in the whole EU-28, by
investment in and operation of hydrogen
technologies.
Benefits for energy producers/ industry
Job creation generated by
hydrogen-related
investments and operations
Not possible to monetise benefit.
29100–103 100 direct jobs (in production and
operations & maintenance) and contribute to
further 74 100–241 150 indirect jobs between
2020 and 2030
Benefits identified for citizens and society as
a whole
Job creation generated by
installed capacity of
renewable hydrogen
electrolysers
Not possible to monetise benefit.
Between 140,000 and 170,000 jobs for
manufacturing and maintenance of 2x40 GW
electrolyser capacity up to 2030.
Benefits identified for citizens and society as
a whole
Avoidance of stranded assets
through the conversion of
existing natural gas assets
into dedicated hydrogen
pipelines
Reduction of up to 90% compared to new build Benefits for administrations (NCAs), energy
producers/ industry
B) GOVERNANCE / INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING
 Integrated offshore renewable development plans per each sea basin for better infrastructure planning and project
implementation (Option B.1.1); strengthened governance of the TYNDP planning and preparation and sustainability
of the gas infrastructure categories as proposed under the preferred option on “Scope” (Option B.2.1)
Direct benefits
Deployment cost savings 10 percent in cost savings, equivalent to between
EUR 300 million and EUR 2500 million for five
projects alone, depending of the size of the
comparable conventional projects
Benefits identified for citizens and society as
a whole, project promoters (including
transmission system operators),
administrations (NCAs)
GHG emission reduction
from the substitution of
fossil fuels by offshore
renewable energy.
Not possible to monetise benefit.
Given the expected deployment the emissions
reductions can be considered significant in a mid-
term perspective. These would depend on the
actual deployment rate and the greenhouse gas
intensity of the electricity it replaces. This is
influenced by various factors including demand
and supply patterns, price sensitivities,
localisations, grid congestions
Benefits identified for citizens and society as
a whole
Indirect benefits
Job creation in offshore RES
sectors (wind, wave, tidal,
floating solar)
Not possible to monetise benefit.
Approx. 520 000 jobs, as follows:
- Increase from current 77,000 jobs in
offshore wind to more than 200,000
jobs.
- 400,000 jobs in the ocean energy sector
(e.g. wave, tidal, floating solar) by 2050
Benefits identified for citizens and society as
a whole
C) PERMITTING AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
6
 Accelerating the completion of the permitting process though proposing to use preferential treatment for the PCIs on
court proceedings (Option C.1.1. without sub-option on shortening of the time limit for the permitting process); one-
stop shop per sea basin for offshore renewable projects (Option C.1.2)
Direct benefits
Avoidance of delay costs
due to court proceedings
A delay of 2 years due to an average court
procedure was estimated at a cost of 150 million
€2
.
Benefits identified for society at large, but
also for project promoters (including
transmission system operators),
administrations (NCAs)
II. Overview of costs – Package of preferred options
Citizens/Consumers Businesses Administrations
One-off Recurrent One-off Recurrent One-off Recurrent
Action (a)
Broadened
scope for
regulated
assets
(smart
grids)
Direct costs
Administrative
burden (project
promoters):
participation in
regional group
meetings,
collection and
submission of
information
required for
network
planning,
monitoring and
reporting
Administrativ
e burden:
participation
in regional
group
meetings
(NRAs),
organisation
of regional
group
meetings,
monitoring
Indirect costs Potential
increase of
network tariffs
Potential
increase of
network
Potential
increase of
network
tariffs
Action (b)
Establish
ment of
integrated
offshore
developme
nt plans
Direct costs
Administrative
costs (mainly
TSOs /
ENTSOs):
participation in
regional group
meetings,
collection and
submission of
information
required for
network
planning
Administrativ
e burden:
participation
in regional
group
meetings
(NRAs,
ACER),
organisation
of regional
group
meetings,
monitoring
(Commission,
ACER)
Indirect costs Potential
increase of
Potential
increase of
Potential
increase of
2
Renewable Grid Initiative and ENTSOE, Value of timely implementation of “better projects”, May 2019,
Working Paper https://eepublicdownloads.azureedge.net/clean-
documents/Publications/Position%20papers%20and%20reports/20190517_RGI_ENTSOE_working_paper_b
etter_projects.pdf
7
network tariffs network tariffs network
tariffs
Action
(c)
Integrate
d
infrastruc
ture
plans
Direct costs Administrative
costs related to
the
coordinated
approach
(mainly TSOs,
DSOs and
ENTSOs):
data
collection,
participation
in meetings
Administrati
ve costs
related to the
increased
oversight for
the
Commission
and ACER
(between
EUR 80 000
and 150 000,
one
additional
FTE)
Indirect costs
Action
(d) One-
stop shop
per sea
basin for
offshore
renewabl
e projects
Direct costs Administra
tive costs
to establish
the one
stop shop
Indirect costs
Action e)
Inclusion
full
investme
nt costs
Direct costs Administrati
ve costs
related to the
strengthened
obligation
on NRAs
Electronically signed on 01/12/2020 16:08 (UTC+01) in accordance with article 11 of Commission Decision C(2020) 4482